RELATED
• Fortune.com: Is fat the next tobacco?
• Why suing McDonald's could be a good thing
• McDonald's nutrition labels set for Britain

NEW YORK, New York (CNN) -- Lawyers who last month couldn't get a federal judge to bite on their claims that McDonald's food was responsible for making their clients fat went back to the counter for a second helping Thursday, filing a revised complaint accusing the fast food giant of making misleading nutritional claims.

The original complaint was dismissed on January 22 by U.S. District Court Judge Robert Sweet, who said plaintiffs failed to show that McDonald's food was "dangerous in any way other than that which was open and obvious to a reasonable consumer."

But he gave lawyers for the obese McDonald's eaters 30 days to amend the complaint to try to establish that there were dangers that were "not commonly well known."

In the revised complaint, attorney Samuel Hirsch accused McDonald's of "deceptive practices in the advertising, processing and sale of foods, including Chicken McNuggets, Filet-O-Fish, Chicken Sandwich, french fries and hamburgers."

Hirsch asked for class-action status for the suit on behalf of "hundreds of thousands of New York state residents under the age of 18" who suffer health problems as a result of eating McDonald's food.

In the 46-page complaint, Hirsch alleged that McDonald's does not make its nutritional information "adequately available" and said numerous claims made by the fast-food chain are misleading and untrue.

While a McDonald's nutritional booklet claims the fish in a Filet-O-Fish is "100 percent cod with a pinch of salt to taste after cooking," the list of ingredients for the sandwich includes modified corn starch, dextrose, cellulose gum, citric acid and an anti-foaming agent called dimethylpolysiloxane, the complaint alleges.

The suit also alleges that while McDonald's claimed in advertisements that its beef is nutritious and leaner than beef purchased in a supermarket, the levels of saturated fat and cholesterol would not make the beef nutritious. The United States Department of Agriculture has also found that meat used in fast-food outlets was generally fattier than retail meat purchased in grocery stores, the complaint said.

In a statement McDonald's called the new lawsuit "senseless" and accused the plaintiffs of "focusing on only one food organization."

"McDonald's serves quality food and ingredients from quality suppliers and continues to be a leader in providing customers with nutritional information about our food," the statement said.

Legal action first of its kind
A McDonald's spokesman told CNN in a telephone interview that "eating McDonald's food can easily fit into a balanced diet. I eat its food every day, and I'm perfectly healthy."

Lawyers representing McDonald's have also said "every responsible person understands what is in products such as hamburgers and fries, as well as the consequence to one's waistline, and potentially to one's health, of excessively eating those foods over a prolonged period of time."

McDonald's lawyers also contend that it would be impossible to establish whether eating at McDonald's was a major cause of ailments because genetics, medical conditions and sedentary lifestyles could also be factors. Company lawyers also warned that if the case were allowed to proceed, "it would lead to an avalanche of litigation."

The landmark legal action was the first of its kind against a fast-food chain to make its way into a U.S. courtroom.

"Contrary to what many may think, we are not looking to get rich from a large money settlement," Hirsch told CNN. "We are proposing a fund that will educate children about the nutritional facts and contents of McDonald's food."

The original suit was filed last August by the parents of two girls who claimed McDonald's and two of its restaurants in the Bronx failed to clearly and conspicuously disclose the ingredients and effects of its food, including high levels of fat, salt, sugar and cholesterol.

The plaintiffs argued that McDonald's should be held accountable for the girls' obesity, heart disease, diabetes, high blood pressure and elevated cholesterol.

The girls, also listed as plaintiffs in the revised complaint, are Jazlyn Bradley and Ashley Pelman. Bradley, 19, is 5-feet-6 and weighs 270 pounds; Pelman, 14, is 4-feet-10 and 170 pounds.

Bradley said her regular diet included an Egg McMuffin for breakfast and a Big Mac meal for dinner. Pelman preferred Happy Meals and said she ate at McDonald's three or four times a week.

Bradley's father, Israel, said he never saw anything in the Bronx restaurants that informed him of the food's ingredients. "I always believed McDonald's was healthy for my children," he said in an affidavit.

Bradley's father, Israel, said he never saw anything in the Bronx restaurants that informed him of the food's ingredients. &quot;I always believed McDonald's was healthy for my children,&quot; he said in an affidavit. [/B]

yeh if i was president,.... ah lets not get into that....it has been known for years maybe even decades that fast food restaurants are not very healthy....and they think they can just claim they didnt know...that money should be going to a chldrens hospital not to those fata$$es who probably open a franchise if they win the lawsuit

NEW YORK, New York (CNN) -- Lawyers who last month couldn't get a federal judge to bite on their claims that McDonald's food was responsible for making their clients fat went back to the counter for a second helping Thursday, filing a revised complaint accusing the fast food giant of making misleading nutritional claims.

I guess they thought there's more than one way to skin a cat...

But he gave lawyers for the obese McDonald's eaters 30 days to amend the complaint to try to establish that there were dangers that were &quot;not commonly well known.&quot;

In the revised complaint, attorney Samuel Hirsch accused McDonald's of &quot;deceptive practices in the advertising, processing and sale of foods, including Chicken McNuggets, Filet-O-Fish, Chicken Sandwich, french fries and hamburgers.&quot;

Bull****

Hirsch asked for class-action status for the suit on behalf of &quot;hundreds of thousands of New York state residents under the age of 18&quot; who suffer health problems as a result of eating McDonald's food.

&quot;Contrary to what many may think, we are not looking to get rich from a large money settlement,&quot; Hirsch told CNN. &quot;We are proposing a fund that will educate children about the nutritional facts and contents of McDonald's food.&quot;

uummm...i believe that is already out there.

The original suit was filed last August by the parents of two girls who claimed McDonald's and two of its restaurants in the Bronx failed to clearly and conspicuously disclose the ingredients and effects of its food, including high levels of fat, salt, sugar and cholesterol.

The plaintiffs argued that McDonald's should be held accountable for the girls' obesity, heart disease, diabetes, high blood pressure and elevated cholesterol.

I still think their parents should be sued for child abuse or neglect for allowing their kids to get in this shape.

The girls, also listed as plaintiffs in the revised complaint, are Jazlyn Bradley and Ashley Pelman. Bradley, 19, is 5-feet-6 and weighs 270 pounds; Pelman, 14, is 4-feet-10 and 170 pounds.

And I suppose he just now noticed his overweight daughter? 5'6" and 270!! where were her parents...i guess they thought their daughter was eatin too many apples since micky d's is so healthy

Bradley's father, Israel, said he never saw anything in the Bronx restaurants that informed him of the food's ingredients. &quot;I always believed McDonald's was healthy for my children,&quot; he said in an affidavit. [/B][/QUOTE]

What planet is this guy from??!!
If this werent so sad it would be funny.....

Well, to win, they would need to show either that McD food is unreasonably dangerous or that the company was somehow fraudulent in hiding the food's dangerous nature. There is a certain amount of common sense that the court will look at...no reasonable person would think that big macs and fries are healthful foods. McD has nutrition information available so I fail to see any fraud here. There is however, a little bit of legal reasoning here to state that McDs is at fault--it is a very light edge, but enough to allow a lawyer to state a claim. Now, I'm not saying this is the case but...some of my brethren will (insted of just saying "this won't win") file a case on contingency in the hopes that the other side will settle. Normally, if the other side settles, the attorney will get 15-20% of the settlement.

Originally posted by Hal Well, to win, they would need to show either that McD food is unreasonably dangerous or that the company was somehow fraudulent in hiding the food's dangerous nature. There is a certain amount of common sense that the court will look at...no reasonable person would think that big macs and fries are healthful foods. McD has nutrition information available so I fail to see any fraud here. There is however, a little bit of legal reasoning here to state that McDs is at fault--it is a very light edge, but enough to allow a lawyer to state a claim. Now, I'm not saying this is the case but...some of my brethren will (insted of just saying &quot;this won't win&quot file a case on contingency in the hopes that the other side will settle. Normally, if the other side settles, the attorney will get 15-20% of the settlement.

Hal

I agree...in the ads I've seen micky d's run i've never seen anything i'd consider fradulent....but like you said people have to have some measure of common sense and the dagners of consistently eating this kinda food are well known...duh. I hate to think its a matter of the attorneys filing this new case to get their fees...but that may very well be. sad, imo.